【WOWS Q&A】2017/06/06+07



Answered by Sub_Octavian, gathered by Allied_Winter (EU)

Q: Would WG considered bring New WoT MM to WoWs ?


A: Not yet, but we’re interested in WoT team experience. When we fully see the results of their new MM, we’ll decide whether it is good for WoWs.


1: How’s the CV rework going? Is Kaga some sort of herald about how new CVs could work (more diversivied load outs / faster torpedos)?

2: Premium ship balance: Where do you think is the tricky part in balancing premiums? New consumables or other special gameplay features?
2: 金币船的平衡: 你们认为在平衡金币船时最蛋疼的是什么地方?是新的消耗品还是说其他特殊的游戏体验?


For CV balancing, we’re testing new concept for USN loadouts, which actually should be LESS focused and MORE universal – what most players requested – and AP bombs for high-tier USN CVs. More balanced against IJN and more threat to BBs/

The tricky thing is that we support free to win concept, but players who invest money have very high expectations for their ships performance. I personally think some premiums turned out to be more powerful than needed, but so did many regular ships. It is impossible to reach 100% accurate equality. Player skill is also an issue (again, it counts for regular ships too). I guess you understand the difference between skillful and not skillful Atlanta.

Q: Last QnA I asked about the Indianapolis and how it needs some love in the concealment and rate of fire department. You said you would look into her and see if she needs a buff. This is after taking Lo Yang into account, which I mentioned previously which you have since buffed on the PTS.

A: Lo Yang needed some love as detailed research has shown. For Indianapolis, for now, I don’t see any strong argument for a buff.

Q: How is Belfast Balanced? Are you going to remove the useless “special” modules anytime soon? like Spotter,Def AA mod for example.

A: She is very strong in the right scenarios and with the right application. We’re fine with it. No.

Q: Is it an intended Feature of Kaga to be able to delete any equal Tier BB with it’s 12 TBDs? It has the same alphastrike as Taiho, but faces ships two entire tiers lower.

A: No, because there’s no such feature. Her squishy planes are her balancing factor.

Q: Regarding the Hood, why does her shells have less Krupp (therefore, less AP penetration) than the Warspite?

A: These are different shells. Hood has better angles and special fuse setup. So the answer is: for better balance.

Q: Is there a chance in the (far-off) future for a pan-South American and/or pan-European researchable tech tree?

A: There is always a chance. Even for Vatican nuclear-space-laser sumbarines. Theoretically. Sorry, but I really cannot comment on such questions.


1.Why does the entire line of US DD’s from Farragut onwards (and every other ship with the 5″/38 like Atlanta and Lo Yang) get a .03 second AP fuse while every other line of DD’s and cruisers with small caliber guns get a .01 second fuse?
With these fuses you’ll overpen the Khab in a knifefight, overpen BB bows and while its a situation you’ll never encounter in a real battle its even possible to overpen the citadels on cruisers with 76mm belts at extremely close range.
1. 为什么从法拉格特开始的所有美国驱逐舰(以及其他使用5”/38主炮的船,比如亚特兰的和洛阳)的AP印信是0.03秒,而所有其他驱逐和巡洋舰的小口径AP的印信都是0.01秒?

2.Every single main battery gun from 150-152MM has a .01 second HE fuse instead of the .001 fuse everything else has but this does not apply to 150MM secondaries firing HE.
Likewise every 15″ gun in-game with the exception of Bayern has a .03 second HE fuse.
Are these intentional?
Do these longer HE fuses do anything?
2. 游戏中所有150~152mm口径的主炮的HE引信都是0.01秒,而不是其他任何HE引信的0.01秒,但是150mm口径的副炮的HE又不受到这个规则的影响。


Because legacy settings. You are very nice in bringing this to my attention. Thank you. We will re-address these settings and fix them. There is no reason in current balance for these longer fuse settings.

Fuse time for HE is a legacy setting. Don’t bother, it does not affect anything.

Q: Any possibility to buff Atlanta? Comparing it to Flint the atlanta is just hugely inferior. I get that Flint has smoke and Atlanta has radar but why does the flint also get 9.2km torps while Atlanta has pitiful 4.5km?

A: Not planned, no reason to do that. If you think the Flint is THAT good, well, it is there to be earned in Ranked. Buffing Atlanta torps would mostly harm less skilled players, who would broad-side more often in the end.


1. I wanna ask about the sequentional firemode. How is the timeing defined between 2 main batterie shots?
1. 想问下连发开火的事情,连发之间的时间差是怎么定的?

2: Is there a tutorial for CVs on the way?
2. 什么时候推出航母教程?


1.The delay is fixed global. 0.3 secs.
1. 延迟是固定的,0.3秒。

2.I hope we’ll do it when we’re done with basic tutorial through personal offers – if we see it’s efficient.
2. 估计要在我们做完个人折扣系统后的教程才能有时间弄—如果我们觉得这样就可以了的话。

Q: How do you plan on reducing the Battleship population in the game? As I see it either cruisers tier 7 and up need some serious help surviving, a battleship limit per team is in order or battleships need some serious nerfs to either survivability or firepower to give cruisers a chance at surviving and making gameplay more dynamic. I personally feel cruisers are being made obsolete by the latest additions to battleships like Hydroacoustic Search, Defensive Fire and Radar, giving battleships cruiser utility in addition to the best survivability and firepower in the game? Is there any plan to address this? I would be strongly in favor of removing all consumables from battleships that aren’t Damage Control, Repair Party and Catapult Fighters/Spotting Aircraft to give cruisers their utility back as I personally do not believe that a ship that can survive the best, deal the most damage and support it’s team with utlity skills like radar can even remotely be considered balanced.

A: Direct and global BB nerf is an option, but not desirable, due to obvious outrage and many other issues (like nerfing/not nerfing premium BBs). Buffing underperforming cruisers and destroyers and improving carriers seems like a better option for now. As you know, we’ve done a lot for cruisers recently (IFHE, USN buff, KM upcoming buff), but CVs tweaks were missing. Fortunately, we’re getting to them now. We plan to test new type of bombs – armor piercing – for mid-high tier USN carriers. Such weapon would pose more threat to BBs, especially to camping ones (easy to hit and no deck  inclination / dodging), and pose little threat to other classes due to lots of overpens.

Q: Is there any way for people who missed the Arppegio collaboration to get ARP ships in the future….. If not, then when is the HSF ships coming? Any plans for a kancolle collaboration in the far future?

A: ARP is closed for now due to contract end. We legally cannot distribute them now. HSF is in development.


Some explanations about the penetration mechanic in relationship to the changes for German guns by developer BadPreacher.

Let us start with HE. The penetration is computed according to the 1/6 or 1/4 caliber rules, rounding to the nearest whole number. The resulting number is the armor thickness that the HE shell cannot penetrate. For example, for a 152mm HE shell we get approximately 25.334 (152/6), which rounds to 25, meaning that 25mm will not be penetrated, but 24mm or thinner will be.

The 1/4 rule in 0.6.6 for German guns applies as follows:

1. Main battery: all battleships and cruisers of tiers 4-10,
1. 主炮:所有4~10级的战舰和巡洋舰(适用1/4规则)

2. Secondaries of 128mm and 150mm caliber: all battleships of tiers 7-10, and cruisers Roon and Graf Spee.
2. 128mm以及150mm口径的副炮:所有7~10级的战舰,还有鲁恩和斯佩伯爵。

Turning to the AP. The penetration is computed according to the 14.3 rule, without rounding. Divide the gun caliber by 14.3. A bounce cannot occur if the result exceeds the thickness of the armor. The check for penetration accounts for the impact angle (normalization), so that the normalized line-of-sight thickness of amour applies. Consequently, even if the shell did not bounce it may fail to penetrate the armor.

【WOWS Q&A】2017/06/06+07》上有4条评论

  1. 还加强美航轰炸机?




电子邮件地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注